Meanwhile, Ecuador prepares to extradite a blogger it offered asylum in 2008.

Alexander Barankov sits, today, in a Quito jail awaiting extradition to Belarus. He is charged with "fraud" for blogging about corruption in the former Soviet country and angering its dictator, Alexander Lukashenko.

The leftist Die Tageszeitung writes:

"The case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has become an unbelievable example of international hypocrisy. Both of the countries involved, Great Britain and Ecuador, are blameworthy."

"Far from the world's attention, the (Ecuadorian) government is evicting an ex-government worker from Belarus who has enjoyed three years of asylum status in Ecuador. The reason is that six weeks ago, Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko was in Quito to sign a number of trade agreements and applied pressure. A short time later the man, Alexander Barankov, was arrested in Quito. Against this background, the flowery words of Ecuador's foreign minister about the huge importance of political asylum don't hold much value."

Like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Alexander Barankov has worked to expose government misconduct via the Internet. Both men have received refuge on Ecuadorian territory. But while the South American country made world headlines granting Assange diplomatic asylum on Thursday morning, Barankov faces imminent extradition from Ecuador to its new ally Belarus, described by most observers as “Europe’s last dictatorship.”

...The plight of Barankov poses a real test of Ecuador’s commitment to human rights. A former Belarusian army captain, Barankov arrived in Quito in 2008 thanks to the Ecuadorian government’s very liberal immigration laws. He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.

1. I would like to

see confirmation and get more informationa about the case from more sources. But if the story is true, let's hope that Assange decision and threat of appearing hypocrite saves also Barankov's asylum and safety.

17. Thanks

Also good news about the situation of independent investigative media in Ecuador:
"Two weeks after Alexander Lukashenko's visit, the story about the Belarusian was shown in night newscast "Televistazo" on TV channel "Ecuavisa", which the locals consider the most objective. It says, the case of depriving Barankov of the refugee status hasn't completed, yet."

And as said, Assange decision should affect Barankov's case positively.

27. Really? You think that's a positive sign, after the leader of Belarus personally visited Correa?

And after they agreed to mutal defense and moneymaking (i.e. trade) agreements?

June 29, 2012
Ecuador and Belarus have agreed to develop closer military ties.

The defense agreement was signed during a visit to Quito by Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka on June 28.

Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa told reporters Belarus is important for its technological advances and commitment to socialism.

He and Lukashenka -- criticized by the West for rights abuses and authoritarian rule -- also signed agreements on trade, education, agriculture, and the exchange of diplomats. ...

If I were Assange, I'd be a bit worried about Correa's loyalty to any person or "cause." He could have put that guy under house arrest--instead, he's in a cold and old jail cell, in the midst of a hunger strike--and if he goes home, he'll disappear quick as a wink.

29. Freedom of press in Ecuador

has been much criticized by the usual culprits. That this story which is less than flattering to Correa originates from Ecuador's media is a positive sign of the state of freedom of expression and investigative journalism in Ecuador.

Sure, letting Lukashenko out of his cage to any country is bad, but I feel equally violated by another criminal Hillary Clinton visiting my country. International politics are seldom pretty from any angle. And as for Finnish politicians, let's just say that they shouldn't be.

33. Usual culprits? Human rights agencies are suspicious, now?

--Guy from Belarus who doesn't like the crazed, thug-like dictatorship of a government is granted asylum in Ecuador. He settles in and starts blogging.

--Leader of Belarus shows up a few years later in Quito with Toys for Tots, er, Correa.

--Guy from Belarus who was getting asylum is--quick as a fucking wink-- thrown in jail, goes on hunger strike, gets dragged before a magistrate, and in three days we will know if he will be "disappeared" after he is returned to his unhappy homeland...

But Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is counter-intuitive refuge for the free speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuador's justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, told the Guardian.

Usual culprits?

I must say, your bizarre characterization of these agencies who actually get off their asses and work to protect the rights of others is a bit stunning. And if you consider the Democratic Secretary of State, the senior cabinet official in the Cabinet of my Democratic President, Barack H. Obama, to be a criminal, maybe you're in the wrong place here--you might want to review the TOS http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice before you step any deeper in the shit you're creating. This is Democratic Underground, not Fuck You Democrats Underground.

37. There was a time

when I followed the anti-Chavez threads on DU. Same'o with Ecuador now. You've never followed those discussions?

Since when has spying of UN officials and extrajudicial assassinations of US and other citizens been lawful or acceptable? I'm not US citizen so I thank god don't need to bother myself about who to vote there, and this is not the forum of uncritical support for everything that Dems do. Of course I'm also aware that during election campaigns things get more touchy and intolerant - as your response shows -, but also the whole world keeps changing at its pace.

44. You said "usual culprits." I responded with the names of four human rights agencies.

Those were the agencies that had the problem with Correa, not anonymous people on message boards. This isn't about other conversations--this discussion is about Assange, Correa, Ecuador, press freedom and a Belorussian guy whose asylum is in jeopardy because Correa is playing Let's Make a Deal with a despot.

Language matters. The TOS of this website matters, too. Hillary Clinton has never assassinated anyone or spied on UN officials, so cut the crap right there--your comment was about her as some sort of bizarre justification and it was WAY out of line.

When I provided you with that link to the TOS, that was for your own good--the rules here are not optional, even if you are not a US citizen. You can't say "Oh well, I am not a citizen and I can't vote so I can trash American Democrats as I please." That's not how it works--fair warning, now. If you start trashing Democrats, you're in dangerous territory. This is not "Fuck the Government Underground." It is a forum with rules, and those rules get ramped up a bit in election season. I provided you the link so you might "get correct" with what is expected here--this is a membership site, not a public bulletin board. Just saying.

The points you might want to review:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

47. Yup

And in the discussions I've followed, organisations like HRW and Reporters Without Frontiers have received well founded criticism for their reports and opinions on Latin America, especially countries like Venezuela. To large extent they have been parts of the Western propaganda attacks against the peaceful and democratic socialist revolution that has been going on in Latin America. Which, I must add, benefits from constructive and responsible criticism, but not from propaganda smearing and naive and one-eyed support for shrill RW coupist media.

3. Uh-oh...this kind of fucks up the "narrative," doesn't it?

That "cui bono" question gets tricky when it comes down to money-money-money. It benefitted the Ecuadorans to play the contrarians who grant asylum, but when cash got put on the barrelhead, that contrarian shit went out the window.

If Ecuador extradites that guy and he gets put to death, I would imagine Assange would start to opine that there is a price tag on him, too--IF anyone wanted to pay it. Wonder what it might be? A trade agreement? Mil-to-mil arrangements? Armaments?

Assuming (as so many readily are doing here) the US really wanted Assange (instead of simply leaving the Ecuadorans to keep him imprisoned in Knightsbridge), what would Correa's price be, I wonder? What is the price to toss Julian under the bus, if USA even wants the guy after Sweden is through with him? Or, if USA did not want him, and it was simply Sweden who wanted him to answer to their justice system?

If one wants to get even more nefarious, who's to say some third nation (not Belarus, as we aren't getting along terribly well with that repressive police state) isn't acting as the third party bag man and PAYING Ecuador to keep Assange in, what is in effect, a London townhome prison?

The Stand Yer Ground guy who killed Trayvon Martin has more freedom of movement than Assange, these days!

If the USA's goal is to prevent Assange from running his Wikileaks franchise, already they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. For the price of a few coppers on the street, automatic surveillance of public spaces in, and surrounding areas of, the facility housing Ecuador's (and Colombia's) embassy, the guy is, in effect, JAILED. If he runs his business from the Embassy (and I will wager the Brits will know in seconds if he tries), the Brits have cause under their 1987 law to say that the Ecuadorans have breached the diplomatic understanding between the two nations, and they'd jump in and snatch him up.

He's in jail, essentially--and the Ecuadorans are paying the freight.

I'm betting Assange is far less likely to want to run to Quito, after learning of this Ecuadoran imbroglio...

4. You seem to accept that the extradition is a case of venal pay-for-play by Ecuador with Balarus

That appears to be circumstantially possible, of course, but it could be that there's no direct connection between the bilateral trade deal and the move to extradite him. I doubt if the volume of trade between the two countries will actually be very great. There may well be other factors, such a geopolitical alliances, at work here.

Given the leftward tilt of much of Latin and South America, Russia and its allies may be making a play, and this guy seems to have pissed them off much in the same way that Assange did the US and its strategic partners.

Not saying that extraditing someone for political reasons is any better than commercial ones, just that the Ecuador's motives aren't necessarily purely venal.

34. Just as likely, Ecuador imagined the US would offer something, and we didn't.

36. Oh, that may very well be.

But I doubt it.

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

23. I don't "seeeeeeeeeeem" to "accept" anything. I'm speculating here like every other swinging

so-and-so is. But if you have a better idea, other than that the Head Honcho of Belarus visits with the Head Honcho of Ecuador one day, and next day poor old Alex the Asylum Refugee is rotting away on a hunger strike in an Ecuadoran jail awaiting the VERY REAL possibility of being shipped off to certain death in his homeland, I'd be delighted to entertain it.

No one here has any "information." They have speculation, opinion, supposition. And they have the information provided in the links above--let's refresh:

He then set up a blog denouncing corruption and other crimes allegedly committed under authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko. Ecuador initially granted him refugee status, but after a state visit by Lukashenko to Quito on June 29, he was arrested and is being held in the capital’s infamous, 19th century prison while the top court hears the case on Belarus’ fresh extradition request. If sent there, according to his partner, Maribel Andrade, he will face charges of treason and could be put to death.

Smells a little hypocritical and self serving to me.....hmmmm? But then, that's Correa for ya! No surprises there at all.

25. So Ecuador's a "little hypocritical and self serving", and the US is about a million times more.

That should work out to about a trillion dollars to Ecuador to sell Assange.

Ka-ching!

You should be happy - double whammy. Assange gets to be disappeared by the US, Ecuador gets a huge chunk of change and a chance to look like every other government in the world instead of a banana republic.

31. Where's the US's "offer?" And why would they make one? They've gotten what they want!

The US doesn't want Assange--he's radioactive.

They might want Assange to shut the fuck up, and stop doing what he is doing, but he's nothing but a headache right now--particularly before a US election, so, despite the insistence of a few vociferous folks, they don't want to drag him to America to testify against Bradley Manning (like he'd be a good witness...not)--they already have the forensic evidence in that regard.

The best way to get Assange to shut up and stop doing what he is doing is to corner him...and that appears to have happened.

Ecuador, in Correa's need to pull the tail of the British lion to position himself as the Heir to the Chavez "Imperialist Tweaking" Crown, made a grandiose offer ... and now he's stuck with Julian, the Semi-Permanent Houseguest. At least until Correa chooses to throw him under the bus.

It looks like Assange is getting good at using a Flow-Bee to cut his own hair. He'd better guard his health and try to avoid illness so he won't need a doctor, and brush his teeth well--he won't be able to leave to see a dentist. He might be stuck in that embassy for awhile. A couple of cops and some passive/positive surveillance equipement monitoring his every move is way cheaper than having to imprison him formally. Let Ecuador be his jailer--they can pay for it, he's stuck, and everyone knows right where to find him.

This isn't about "win-wins," to my mind, and your silly little "you should be happy" comment tells me you're needlessly (and rather immaturely, frankly) personalizing this conversation--I am just looking at this logically. Why would USA want to re-energize the near dead "We're not political, we have no leaders, all the political parties suck" OWS movement (which couldn't bother to do any protesting over the outrageous sentence of young women musicians who were thrown in jail for two years for a silly little protest in a church) by goading them with a parade of "Assange, the poor victim?" Why would they be so foolish...when they've already gotten a good result, thanks to Ecuador's pompous need to play the tough guy? So long as Assange is in that embassy, he's not running Wikileaks. He's neutralized.

I don't know how often people are going to want to come by to hear Evita-like pronouncements from the balcony in Knightsbridge. I think that show will get stale in a hurry. I suppose if you were on your way to Harrod's anyway, it might be fun, but I don't think the interest will be sustained. The longer Assange stays in that embassy, the less people will give a shit about him. IMO. And this has nothing whatsoever to do with his guilt or innocence vis-a-vis Sweden (though if the Ecuadorans keep him imprisoned--er, under asylum protection--for three or four years, the Swedes may consider that fair value, too) it's just the way the public mindset works.

32. Your post #3 made this OP about $. Robb, who knows, maybe he wants to make Ecuador look $ grubbing?

I have no idea why its posted other than to expose Ecuador as being like every other country on the planet - money grubbing and willing to throw over principles for cash.

I have no idea why the US is continuing to seek Assange, but they are persisting...

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.

This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.

The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

38. I didn't "make it" about money. I opined as to motivation, is all.

And my suppositions were based ENTIRELY on the conduct of Ecuador on the 28th and 29th of June of this very year. By their actions, THEY made it clear they are all about the Benjamins.

I mean, come on--based on their conduct with Belarus, we know exactly what Ecuador is, the only question might be a bit of a quibble about the price. And if they ARE--as you say-- just like every other country on the planet, they should be careful about playing the "champion of freedom and justice" card while throwing a guy who really WILL get killed if he gets sent home under the bus. It's called blatant hypocrisy when they do it so cavalierly like that, and expect people to not notice.

Australian diplomats can say the sky is green when it is, in fact, blue--so long as they are not named, they can't be called to account for their suppositions.

It is characteristic of most First World nations to engage in contingency planning. Every nation worth its salt is chock a block full of them, covering every conceivable possibility, even the most remote ones. Just because people sketch out plans doesn't mean they have any intention of executing them.

A labor leader in AU made a CONTINGENCY request, a foreign affairs minister said the supposition is horseshit.

Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

He hasn't gotten any response back, though, has he?

Read the very link you provided--not the headline, the stuff below the headline--they don't name any names when they're dishing gossip about what COULD happen, only when it's being refuted:

Senator Carr has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that the US has any interest in prosecuting and extraditing Assange. In June, Senator Carr also told the ABC Insiders program: “I've received no hint that they've got a plan to extradite him . . . I would expect that the US would not want to touch this."

At the end of the day, the Australians don't seem to care very much either way what happens to their citizen. Could this be, perhaps, because they know he's not in any grave danger? I don't know the answer to that, but it's certainly a valid question:

Briefings for both Senator Carr and Ms Gillard suggest that the Australian government has no in-principle objection to Assange's extradition to the US.....Senator Carr's office yesterday continued to insist Ecuador's asylum decision and Assange's circumstances remained a matter for Britain, Ecuador and Sweden.

As I've said elsewhere, anyone (Sweden, USA, any other government that is pissed off at his embarrassing cable-leaks tattling) who wants Julian Assange imprisoned, silenced, stopped from doing what he is doing, well, they got their wish--wittingly or unwittingly courtesy of a loudmouth named Correa who is continuing to be bellicose to Great Britain about this matter (it plays well at home). The "double-dog dare ya" nature of his comments makes me wonder if he HOPES the Brits will break down the door and take the guy off his hands, so he has something to really cry about and use to whip up the masses at home. As time passes, though, it looks more and more like the Ecuadorans of Knightsbridge are stuck with Julian, at least for the near term: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190442/Rafael-Correa-Ecuador-President-warns-Britain-grotesque-threat-storm-embassy-Julian-Assange.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

It would not surprise me in the slightest if UK, Sweden, USA, Australia and a few players to remain unnamed are absolutely DELIGHTED to leave Assange right where he is, at least for now.

I mean, really--they don't even have to break down any doors to get the guy, if they actually WANTED him. All they need to do is revoke the diplomatic papers of the Ecuadorans and kick the entire delegation out of the country. Once they're gone, in they go to nab Julian--but why bother to go through that drama? Let the Ecuadorans act as his jailers! The governments who want to talk to the guy gain 'face' for showing restraint, and they don't have to pay a penny for his incarceration!

46. If you will look at my first position (sounds like ballet lessons) you'll see a field of

question marks. Those suggest that I don't know (and do not claim to know) a damn thing--I'm just asking questions.

I am declaring nothing. I am supposing. Speculating. Opining. Wondering. I'm not going in any direction, actually--I am simply laying out a smorgasbord of possibilities. Pick, choose or refuse, as you wish.

It's what people do on message boards. I am not throwing down on any singular declaration; I'm supposing based on eyeballing the available information, applying my years of experience re: how people play these games in public and private life, and relying on a long lifetime of judgment that has kept me alive up to this point in time to come up with a few "what ifs" when it comes to this case.

If I were a US government official, though, AND I wanted Assange corralled and neutralized, I'd be laughing like hell at Ecuador--I can't lie. With this asylum business, they've wittingly or unwittingly volunteered to be the jailhouse for Mister Assange. If I were Sweden, I'd be hoping that the guy did four long years in that tiny little room in the embassy--the maximum time he could do as a guest of their nation (at least that's what I've read). He'd have more room to roam in a Swedish prison, actually!

51. Ecuador has granted Assange asylum, but we do not know what kind of

conditions Ecuador placed on Assange's obtaining long-term asylum status. It may be that Assange will be expected to be cautious in his political and journalistic activities -- maybe not, but maybe. No one has said anything about this. I should think that Ecuador and Assange have some sort of understanding on what will happen once Assange is either in Ecuador or settled for the long-term in the Embassy of Ecuador in London.

5. That's the international game then isn't it? If Assange gets 5 more years to expose intl crimes

it will be 5 more years than he had before. This simply demonstrates how desperate the international power players are to shut these folks donw.

That's the thing with asylum, its only as good for as long as the country agrees. I'm absolutely certain Assange knows that already.

Doesn't change anything for him.

I hope Ecuador has a valid reason instead of what it looks like - bribery. Even if it is a blatant bribery issue then it simply shows they have a price point. Whatever the dollar figure is for Assange should make all the anti-Assange people happy. The US can simply buy him like some kind of slave on the open market.

The formal legal questioning -- that is a requirement to begin prosecution -- is not acceptable to Swedish courts. The prosecutor has said as much.

Lead Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny says the latest arrest warrant was issued because Swedish law prohibits formal legal interviews over a telephone or video link. "We had a case in the southern Swedish city of Helsingborg where a suspect was heard via telephone, and it was heavily criticized by the Ombudsmen for Justice as not being in accordance with existing law," she tells TIME. "The Swedish embassy in London is not Swedish territory in the sense that we can hold interrogations there without formal approval of British authorities."

19. Which is fine, because he hasn't been formally charged with anything.

As far as your excerpted quote...the Swedish prosecutor in question clearly indicates all they need is permission of the "British authorities" in order to question Assange at the embassy.

So are the Brits holding things up? I doubt it. More bullshit. The Swedish government has more than enough options at their disposal to interview him...if they want. But they don't. They want him to be extradited to Sweden so they can extradite him to the United States. Again, from your own quoted excerpt, they don't need to interview him over a telephone or video link. The Ecuadorian embassy and Assange said they would more than welcome an interview in person either by Swedish investigators or someone acting on their behalf.

The Swedish government rejected the offer. Because the whole thing is a ruse. The UK, the US know it. The Swedish government knows it. The OAS knows it, Russia knows it. I dare say there is no country on Earth who doesn't know what's going on.

And, of course, everyone reading this thread knows it, too. You know it too, but you're playing a little game to pretend you don't.

If it were convincing on some level I could see keeping up the act but...

28. I'd bet if he were wiretapped from where he is and admitted something, they would use it against him

39. Marianne Nye has lied about this. There is no Swedish law that prevented

her from questioning Assange, first in Sweden when he asked daily to speak to her and she refused, and then from London which she again consistently refused to do. She claimed there were 'legal impediments', but this turned out not to be the case.

She has also been asked why, after two years, she has failed to file charges. Her circular arguments have been noted by legal experts everywhere, leading many people to believe that she never intended to file charges, but did intend to keep him under house arrest in London for as long as possible.

Her next excuse was that she could not arrest him even if she did speak to him London. Considering that she already had him arrested after issuing the EAW, and that he was out on bail from that arrest, that too was a lie.

But if people took the trouble to look at her 'evidence', they might begin to understand why she is so reluctant to file charges. The exculpatory evidence in this case, NOT published on a daily basis by the press, is mountainous. Starting with texts between the women, 'plotting to make money' by 'destroying his reputation' eg, and much much more. So long as she refuses to charge him, she can continue to refuse to turn that evidence over to the Defense. The Defense did finally get to see some of it, but were denied the right to make copies.

Once the actual evidence, not the ever-changing allegations from the women's original, and recorded statements to the police, is viewed by the public, she is going to have an awful lot of questions to answer. Eg, there are many witnesses who gave testimony, most of it does not bolster her case especially coincided with the women's own words, which they tried to scrub from the internet but not before bloggers saw them and/or screen capped them, making it impossible for those damning texts to go away.

13. Why is he not willing to come to the US and be tried?

One would think that to be the very thing this "hero" would want to do.

Civil disobedience is meaningless is you take the position as he has, that "I can violate a law I don't like and if I claim to have some political ground for it, you have no right to even try me, let alone punish me."

22. Assange case has nothing to do with civil disobedience

Which is the playground where you still give govs and their laws the authority that you civilly disobey (and make a silly martyr of police brutality of yourself). There's no need to take govs and their laws seriously in any way, just follow your heart and conscience.

24. They have? That doesn't sound like "asylum" to me, then!

In any event, I don't think Sweden would buy Ecuador placing any conditions upon their sovereignty. That was an empty request from the get-go.

I hope Assange decides to commence with the flushes while living in the embassy. That's a very small flat, actually--they only "own" half of the first floor on that thing. He'd stink the place up pretty quick if he didn't practice the appropriate bathroom hygiene!

41. I see you've been reading the tabloids. But then, this is a typical example

of how this case has been handled, mostly in the tabloids, let's NOT talk about the facts of the case, let's do a Rush Limbaugh and talk about him not flushing. I guess this has something to do with this very serious case in some way?

What do you think, eg, of the exculpatory evidence in this case, kept out of the gutter press while they talk about flushing toilets, such as texts between the two women plotting to 'make money' by 'destroying his reputation'. The defense wants to know if they were attempting to blackmail him by going to the police to 'ask a question' never intending, as they have said, that charges would be made against him. How about a text on the night of the supposed 'crime' to friends stating, 'I'm here with the most awesome man, and he's in my bed'? Or witness testimony, that one of the women was heard chiding Assange who she was with at a social event 'I woke up and you were gone. I thought you had dumped me'. Mmm, so she woke up an he wasn't there?

And so, so much more. All available in the transcripts although never handed over to the Defense, allowable unless charges are filed. THEN the exculpatory evidence, and there there is a mountain of it, will be released by the Defense to the media. I actually saw some of those texts in real time two years ago, before they were scrubbed from the Internet btw.

Some people believe this the reason why the case was dismissed by the first prosecutor, and why no charges have yet been filed. The actual evidence paints a whole different picture. Which will eventually if he is ever charged, be all over the media.

43. If you are going to be snarky, at least read the whole thread, OK?

You don't see anything of the sort.

Funny how you accuse ME of "reading the tabloids" and the first I heard of this "Poopy Julian doesn't flush" shit (forgive the expression) was right HERE--in this thread. From another DUer.

Sheesh. Pull the string!

Stop personalizing. It makes you look very petty. Read contextually or at least read the whole conversation--it'll keep you out of trouble.

I don't think a thing of the "exculpatory evidence" since--if it's been "scrubbed from the internet" I haven't seen it, now, have I? I have read the statements of the ladies' to the police, and those do not sound like happy campers--no matter what quotes are being flung around to suggest that they are happy and not concerned--there's conflicting comment there, to put it nicely. Since most of us don't read Swedish, either, we are all relying on translations.

I cannot speak for the government of Sweden. I am not a Swede and I know damn little about their justice system, save what I have read in papers that are NOT tabloids. I do understand essential concepts of sovereignty, extradition, etc. I do know what an international arrest warrant is. I know enough, after reading many articles on the subject, that even though he has not been formally "charged" under Swedish law, the proceedings have reached that stage over there that, if the situation were transported to USA or UK, it is the equivalent of being charged even though a formal accusation has not been brought forward.

I do think a lot of this twisted conspiratorial conversation about this guy is a bit over the top. If the US wants Assange to stop doing what he was doing with the Wikileaks, well, they've gotten their wish now, haven't they? He's in a shitty little room with a small bed, a treadmill and a computer--and if he tries to run his business out of the embassy, he'll find himself in a new bath of hot water or at the very least, without an internet connection, I'd bet.

It's like prison, right now, only with email. He's painted into a corner of his own making.

14. Technically it hasn't been revoked yet, but there was a hearing to do so on the 9th.

16. Ecuador has offered to hand over Assange also. Is there any report on the

deal made with Belarus? If Sweden is willing to guarantee that they will not turn Assange over to the US, Ecuador stated yesterday that they want to make a deal with Sweden as doing so would 'end all of this'.

If Belarus has agreed to conditions laid down by Ecuador, then I see nothing different than what they are doing with Assange.

But it's hard to find anything other than on Lucianne.com and other 'gotcha' rightwing sites about this story.

The thing to do, assuming people really care about this man, is to call the Ecuadoran Embassy and express those concerns.

Of course if he is just being used by anti-Assange people, which appears to be the case going by where this story is being reported almost with delight, which I find abhorrent frankly then I doubt there will be too many calls from them.

If there is no deal and Ecuador is simply handing him over, they need to hear from the public, for the sake of this blogger. Not much to be accomplished on his behalf by using his plight to play 'gotcha'.

For those concerned about the blogger you can contact the Ecuadoran Embassy here:

Sending an email and will call also. I'm surprised that no one in the US media or those right wing blogs reporting this story appear to have done this, well no, I am not actually. He makes a good political tool which appears to be all they care about. We called for Assange, I think people should call for him also.

21. mideast war promoters together again, what does it all mean

35. Color me not surprised

I mentioned in a couple of threads that I believed the only interest Ecuador has in Assange is Ecuador. Assange having asylum within the embassy, only, is leverage for something they want from Britain (and maybe Sweden as well). Once both Britain (and maybe Sweden) and Ecuador are satisfied with the mutual back scratching in the back room Ecuador will hand him over. This is everything that being a diplomat is all about... the whole point of embassies really is to negotiate for wanted things from the host country, and whatever leverage can be brought to bear to get what you want or put yourself in a better position to get what you want, well, yee haw.

Assange was likely pinning his hopes on being given asylum in the country of Ecuador itself, but the fact that the asylum is only in their tiny London embassy should pretty much tell him he's screwed. Essentially, he created his own prison there. Jumping bail and holing up in the embassy really backfired on him. It royally pissed off both Sweden and Britain, which gives them no reason at all to grant him any favors and certainly not to give in to any of his demands because they know he's screwed himself. If he were smart he would have been spending the last two years while the case was going through the British court system trying to negotiate the deal he is now - he would have had some small leverage then, but now he's got nothing left to negotiate with and he's really pissed off both Sweden and Britain. The best hope he likely has now is to publicly turn himself over to Sweden without making any demands and try and gain more public sympathy and gain back what he's lost with this latest escapade of his.

45. Assange and Correa became acquainted while Assange was working as a correspondent/interviewer/

ass-kisser for Putin er, Russia Today television network, which is beloved here for its nose-tweaking of what some call the "PTB" despite its direct connections to KGB Vlad--the biggest "PTB" in Russky-Land. Players being played...!